New person responsible for oversight of Lewisham Homes

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Lewisham Borough Council should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

I just received an email auto-reply from Genevieve Macklin, stating that she has now left Lewisham Council.

Please provide the following data:

1) The name of the person who has taken over the oversight of Lewisham Homes.

2) That person's email address and business phone number.

As I expect you will be aware - The FOI Act mandates that you respond promptly AND within 20 working days. These are two separate requirements.
Here is the ICO guidance:
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
Copy and pasting from there:
Requirement to respond promptly
21. The obligation to respond promptly means that an authority should comply with a request as soon as is reasonably practicable.
22. Whilst this is linked to the obligation to respond within 20 working days, it should be treated as a separate requirement.
23. An authority will therefore need to both respond promptly and within 20 working days in order to comply with section 10(1).
24. Authorities should regard the 20 working day limit as a ‘long stop’, in other words the latest possible date on which they may issue a response.
25. It also follows that an authority which provides its response close to, or on, the final day of the 20 working day limit ought to be able to both account for, and justify, the length of time taken to comply with the request.

... Given that the data requested here is so extremely basic and easily accessible, I trust that you'll be able to meet the requirement to respond as soon as reasonably practicable - and provide an answer within a few days.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Williams

Foi, Customer, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Mr Williams,

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000

Thank you for your recent request for information. This is to inform you that we are unable to answer your request based on the details you have provided. To assist us in proceeding with your request, please can you provide us with further information.

Please can you clarify your full name?

Please provide clarification within 10 working days. If we do not hear back from you within this time we will assume that the information is no longer required and your request will be closed.

After receiving clarification from you, your request will be acknowledged and considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of any statutory exemptions.

Many thanks and kind regards
Corporate Complaints, Casework and Information Governance Team

show quoted sections

Hi,

My name is Simon Williams.

Of course, you are technically correct that you *are* able to insist on me providing this, before you respond.
... But, I feel compelled to say... [Particularly given the EXTREMELY simple nature of this request] That's a bit pedantic and silly of you, isn't it? (For the avoidance of doubt, this is a rhetorical question; not a new FOI request!).
You're just wasting your own time and mine with this superfluous request for clarification, which adds *nothing* of usefulness to you.
Silly Billys.

I now look forward to receiving the data. One must assume it's reasonably practicable for you to send that to me today - presumably it will only require a one minute internal phone call to ascertain the data.

Kind thanks,

MR SIMON WILLIAMS!!

PS...

Your actions are perhaps extra-especially-double-plus-silly when you consider that I've submitted multiple FOI requests to you in the past, from exactly this same account on Whatdotheyknow.com, and you've never raised this as an issue previously.

Furthermore, I would have thought you should already know absolutely very well exactly who I am - given the amount of contact I've had with both yourselves and your wholly owned ALMO Lewisham Homes.
Since you already know full-well who I am, I suggest that the requirements of the FOI request WERE already met and you are purely making trouble for the sake of it. I think that in itself could be considered a breach of the FOI Act, as you are intentionally causing a delay, thus not releasing the data 'as soon as reasonably practicable'.

It's also noteworthy that the website Whatdotheyknow.com AUTO-completes the valediction for its users, so thousands of FOI requests are going out in that same format (title and surname) and being answered, without the respective public bodies being Silly Billys about the matter.

Here is a sample of prior FOI requests you've received and responded to, without being childish about that exact same point:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...

Silly Billys!

Silly!

Foi, Customer, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Mr Simon Williams,

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000

Reference No: 1659768

Thank you for your recent request.

Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of any exemptions. Where consideration is being given to exemptions the 20 working day timescale may be extended to a period considered reasonable depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In such cases you will be notified and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be indicated. In all cases we shall attempt to deal with your request at the earliest opportunity.

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of the information requested where the request exceeds the statutory limit or where disbursements exceed £10. In such cases you will be informed in writing and your request will be suspended until we receive payment from you or your request is modified and/or reduced.

Your request may require either full or partial transfer to another public authority. You will be informed if your request is transferred.

If we are unable to provide you with the information requested we will notify you of this together with the reason(s) why and details of how you may appeal (if appropriate).

Please note that the directorate team may contact you for further information where we believe that the request is not significantly clear for us to respond fully.


Kind regards
Corporate Complaints, Casework and Information Governance Team

show quoted sections

Hi,

Thanks for the acknowledgement..........

.... Just to clarify though, the only data I'm asking for is:

1) The name of the person who has taken over the oversight of Lewisham Homes.

2) That person's email address and business phone number.

...... It's bewildering why you are faffing around like this - Why are you withholding the data, which is so obviously available to you from a 1 minute internal phone call? In doing this, you are now in breach of the law.

Needlessly, pointlessly, breaking the law.

Foi, Customer, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Mr Simon Williams,

Thank you for airing your concerns. We will be in a position to respond to your FOI request in 20 working days.

Kind regards
Corporate Complaints, Casework and Information Governance Team

show quoted sections

1) Your last message here states that you intend to withhold the data until the 20th working day.

2) You've not explicitly stated when you are starting the clock from, but the inference appears to be that you have delayed the start by one day (because I hadn't mentioned my first name in the original request), and that you will only start the clock from today... Indicating a release 21 working days after I submitted my request.

3) As you SHOULD be aware, the FOI act does NOT say you have 20 working days to respond; the law is very clear that you must respond as soon as reasonably practicable, but no later than the 20th working day. The 20th working day is a 'long stop' and should only be applicable where the request is extremely complex and requires large amounts of work to collate the data.

4) My request is phenomenally simple; the name and contact details of a person in your organisation responsible for a specific area. Any reasonable person can see that this data would OBVIOUSLY be available to you if you just simply make a 1 minute phone call to the relevant department.

5) The time you've squandered ALREADY, with your silliness in the way you've handled this case, would have been more than ample time to have obtained and released the data.

6) I'm a resident of Lewisham Homes, your ALMO responsible for managing your organisation's housing. My request is to know the new person in your organisation who is responsible for oversight of that ALMO.
This is a perfectly reasonable request. Furthermore, the reason I'm asking for this person's details is because I want to bring some problems to their attention, for their benefit.
It makes no sense whatsoever for a local council to hinder one of its residents from informing it about problems that the resident feels it should know about.

7) The person writing your responses has chosen to remain anonymous (quite ironic, given the reason you initially delayed registering my request). However, what you are doing is an egregious breach of the law.

8) I've provided you links to this law and the ICO guidance, so you do not have the excuse of ignorance of the law.
Ignorance of the law would not change the fact it's unlawful, but I suggest the fact that you are knowingly, willfully breaking the law - that makes this an act of gross misconduct in your office: You are deliberately breaking the law by intentionally withholding data that you are legally obliged to release.

Shame on you.

Gibson, Hanna, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Mr Williams

Your email has been passed to me as manager of the team who handles Freedom Of Information requests. I regret to note that you are dissatisfied with the service you have received from my team, and apologise you have had cause to complain.

I have reviewed your request and the subsequent correspondence.

As you are aware, we do need to obtain a full name before we can process an FOI request. Hence I am not critical of my officer in requesting this information from you as he was merely fulfilling his job role.

The wording of the subsequent email to you confirming you will get a reply in 20 working days is unfortunate. We always endeavour to reply as soon as we can,. Hence I will remind the team that their acknowledgments should reflect this.

In terms of your other comments, I would like to clarify a few things.

Whilst you may well have submitted a FOI which is straightforward, you need to be aware that we deal with a number of requests every day, with varying degrees of complexity. There are a few officers dealing with these requests, one of whom is absent at present. The remaining Senior Caseworker responsible for FOI responses, has a number of cases to handle on a daily basis and other priorities such liaising with/ meeting services to discuss cases , managing new correspondence, dealing with a variety of queries from customers and colleagues, and supervising and assisting the admin officer.

With this in mind, whilst we do receive some straightforward FOI requests. It is not always possible to respond immediately, however much we would like to.

In your case, your question appears straightforward and I can provide you an answer now in that the post responsible for overseeing Lewisham Homes (Head of Strategic Housing) is currently vacant. Genevieve Macklin left recently and the recruitment process to appoint a new Head of Strategic Housing is due to commence shortly.

What my team had wanted to do before a response was sent was ascertain if there was anyone else in place to cover this particular function pending the post being filled. This was in an attempt to be as helpful as possible.

This is not as simple as our Admin Officer making a quick call. My team deals with all council requests, and we do not have a detailed knowledge of everyone's role and their responsibilities, and who may cover these in their absence, if anyone.

I reject your assertion that we have deliberately withheld information or broke the law in any way, and I find some of your comments inappropriate and unnecessary under the circumstances, particularly as your FOI was submitted only a few days ago and my officers have not been impolite to you in any way.

Despite this, we are willing to assist you if we can and will be happy to take receipt of your concerns regarding Lewisham Homes and forward them to Strategic Housing who monitor the contact with Lewisham Homes. Please send the details to us and we will ensure that it reaches the appropriate officer/s.

Regards

Hanna Gibson
Complaints & Casework Manager
[email address]

London Borough of Lewisham
Address 5th Floor Laurence House, 1 Catford Road, London, SE6 4RU.
Phone 020 8314 6097
Email  [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Hanna Gibson,

1.) Thank you for providing a coherent reply and for clarifying the issues.

2) It's not factually accurate to say that you 'need' to obtain a full name before you can process an FOI request.
It is true to say that you are entitled to insist on it, if you choose, in order to fulfill the requirements of an FOI request, but you do not 'need' to do this.
You did not request my full name in the multiple other FOI requests I've made to your organisation - and you responded to those.
I do acknowledge that you do have the right to insist upon this - if you want to.
I reiterate my point that it's the Whatdotheyknow.com website that auto-completed my valediction (including my name)... This has not been an issue with any of the dozens of FOI requests I've made in the past (including to your organisation), nor for the other thousands of requests made by others via this site.
In summary, you can insist upon having my full name, but there was no 'obligation' to do so, as you say in your last message.

3) This commotion and my subsequent complaint has come about because your organisation initially said:
'We will be in a position to respond to your FOI request in 20 working days.'
I recognise you've subsequently clarified that this was an error and indicated that you'll provide coaching to that staff member. However, upon reading that statement at the time, I think my outrage was perfectly justified. While sure it could reasonably take a few days to fulfill my request (I would have been perfectly satisfied to have received a response after a week or so), any sane-minded person can see that such a request should not take an entire month. So, when you state *explicitly* that you will not reply until the 20th working day, then that's very obviously going to induce anger from your requester. Implicitly, you said it was your intention to breach the law and withhold the data until the 20th working day.
I understand *now* from your clarification letter that this was more a case of poor staff training, rather than intentional malice, but it did not come across that way at the time.
I'm sorry to hear you 'find some of my comments inappropriate'. I respectfully suggest that if you provide rudimentary training about the basics of the FOI act to staff who are responding to FOI requests, then similar issues can easily be averted in future.

4) I thank you for providing me with your contact email. However, it was auto-censored from publication by the Whatdotheyknow.com website.
Please will it be possible for you to forward that address to my email, which I provided when filing my complaint to Lewisham Council today, your ref: 1648167

5) Is there any possibility you would be able to notify me once you fill the position of Head of Strategic Housing - informing me of the name and contact details of the new incumbent?
... That will save both our parties the hassle of me needing to file repeated FOI requests on this matter until such time as the position is filled.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Williams

Gibson, Hanna, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Mr Williams

Thank you for your comments and clarification. It’s appreciated, and I can assure you that they will be taken onboard. I do welcome feedback on ways I can improve our service.

In his defence, the admin officer who wrote to you has been with us a very short time. The majority of his work has been of a high standard but there are always ways we can improve. Myself included. I will indeed speak to him about ensuring his acknowledgements are accurate in future and apologise again for the misunderstanding.

In regards to the rest of your email, I will respond next week when I am back in the office. I do not currently have access to all of our systems. Once I do I will address the rest of your email and send my email address to the email address you provided in your complaint.

Thanks again and have a good weekend.

Hanna

Sent from my iPad

show quoted sections

Lewisham Council,

I'm writing to request an Internal Review of your handling of this case.

I've now had time to check the wording of the FOI Act. I refer you to Section 8 of the Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200...
Wherein it says that an FOI request must 'state the name of the applicant'.
Please note that it does NOT specify that the applicant must 'state their full name including forenames', nor any suchlike; just that I give a name.
Given that you *had* my name (Mr. Williams), I suggest that your initial refusal to accept my request was done so on false grounds and was therefore unlawful.

I reiterate that the valediction was auto-completed by the website whatdotheyknow.com - and that thousands upon thousands of requests go out in this same format (without forenames) and *are* answered by public bodies (including, in the past, your own organisation).

It might also be worthwhile your noting that certain cultures are monoymous:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mononymous...
... And therefore your insistence on needing two names before processing an FOI could, in certain circumstances, *also* constitute racial discrimination.

Here is the ICO's guidance on this matter:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/reques...
Therein, it states:
What constitutes a real name?
We consider that a relatively informal approach is also appropriate in this context. Therefore, title and/or first name with surname satisfies the requirement for provision of a real name.
[So - title and surname DOES fulfill the requirement.]
It continues with an example:
Mr Arthur Thomas Roberts could satisfy section 8(1)(b) of
the FOIA by stating his name in a request for information
as “Arthur Roberts”, “A. T. Roberts”, or “Mr Roberts”, but
not by stating his name as “Arthur” or “A.T.R.”

NB, that aforementioned ICO guidance also suggests that even when receiving a request made under an obviously false name (eg Spiderman), the public body should still consider responding to that in spite of the fact the request is technically invalid - especially where the applicant's identity is not relevant to the data requested.
I think it's self-evident that the nature of the data I requested (identity of a newly incumbent officer at Lewisham Council) is not affected by the identity of the requester (ie, there is a very, very low likelihood that this was a request from a job applicant attempting to ascertain if they'd got that new officer job at Lewisham Council, or suchlike).
Ergo, according to the ICO's guidance on this matter, it would have been 'best practice' for you to have responded to my request, even if I'd given my name as Batman.

While I was extremely hacked off with your shenanigans and unnecessary delays at the time this request was being dealt with, I want to note that I'm not angry right now and my intention here is *not* to kick up a fuss: I'm genuinely just trying to bring this matter to your attention, with the hope that you'll cease this unlawful practice henceforth. I do this in particular since it does not appear to be an isolated error - you gave the impression that this has been adopted as a part of your standard protocol and this unlawful action was seemingly backed up by your person who oversees the FOI request process.

As further point, I was told I'd receive a direct email from Hanna Gibson, to my personal email address. As of right now, I've not yet received that email, so please will you remind her to send that. Please accept my apologies if that has indeed been sent - but if that's the case, let me know as something has prevented its delivery and we should look into what caused that error.

Please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence.

Yours sincerely,
Mr Williams

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

I sent you a request for an Internal Review a week ago. Please will you acknowledge receipt and confirm you'll conduct this?

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Williams

Stevens, Wendy, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Mr Williams
 
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Reference No: 1659768- Appeal Response
 
We have now considered your appeal. Your request was for information
regarding the new person responsible for the oversight of Lewisham Homes
and the way the request was dealt with.
 
My understanding was that a member of our team queried your name when the
request came in and subsequently stated that you would receive a response
in 20 working days. In my absence (I was on annual leave at the time) my
immediate manager picked this up with you, addressed your concerns and
responded to your request, informally.
 
As you are now aware, a new member of staff initially picked up your
request and asked for clarification of your name. We had given some
guidance regarding clarifying the identity of requesters to our officer
but on this occasion, there was some uncertainty as to ascertaining if a
title and surname alone would be sufficient.  As I’m sure you will
appreciate, it is necessary to comply with Section 8 of the Freedom of
Information Act to ensure that requesters identities are valid and meet
the requirements of ICO guidance. As you quite rightly state, it is at our
discretion to accept a request from ‘batman’ but should we choose to do
this and the requester is dissatisfied with the response they receive,
they would have no recourse should they wish to make a complaint to the
ICO as the Commissioners powers only extend to request for information as
defined by Section 8 of the Act.
 
It was not done to break the law or as an attempt to delay issuing a
response it was purely a misunderstanding of which we have now addressed.
Similarly, the subsequent email you received stating that you would
receive a response in 20 working days was not correct. We have up to 20
working days to respond to requests and endeavour to issue responses as
soon as is practicably possible and within 20 working days. This has also
been addressed and we apologise for this inaccuracy.
 
I hope this clarifies the situation and addresses your concerns. We also
sincerely apologise for any inconvenience caused to you.
 
We hope you find this response to your review satisfactory. However, you
have a further right of appeal against this decision, which you can do so
in writing, stating your reasons to the regulating body, the Information
Commissioner's Office.
Contact details: [1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/ or 0303 123 1113 or Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.
 

show quoted sections

Hi,

Thanks for your reply. I thought I'd been clear, but it's evident I failed.

My was request for an Internal Review was *NOT* about the data, nor about the '20 day's statement.

The ***only*** issue I was asking you to review was this:

1. Your initial response falsely stated that my request was invalid, because I hadn't given my *full* name.

2. When the manager (Hanna Gibson) got involved, she backed up this incorrect assertion and stated this was your standard protocol.

...... I'm just pointing out FOR YOUR BENEFIT that you are incorrect on this matter and - if it's true that this is indeed your policy - then your policy contravenes the law/ICO guidance.

To stress again, this isn't something I am even remotely upset about. I honestly don't really care. I've only asked you to review this matter TO HELP YOU fix your procedures (and to prevent you doing this to other requesters in future).

I'm NOT remotely suggesting that you did this to deliberately break the law. I understand it's simply that you've genuinely misunderstood the law.

Your reply today states the following:
'We had given some guidance regarding clarifying the identity of requesters to our officer but on this occasion, there was some uncertainty as to ascertaining if a title and surname alone would be sufficient. As I’m sure you will appreciate, it is necessary to comply with Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act to ensure that requesters identities are valid and meet the requirements of ICO guidance.'
.... It strikes me as odd that you are saying this now.... The ENTIRE POINT of my request for an Internal Review was to bring to your attention that there is *zero* 'uncertainty' here: Title and Surname *are* sufficient.
What's extra odd is that I even linked you to the relevant pages from the ICO, pertaining to this matter.

I think you've misread the tone of my I.R. request as though I was having a go at you (or perhaps you just have a culture of immediately going on the defensive in all cases).... but I really wasn't... I'm honestly just trying to bring to your attention that what you've said is your policy - it's unlawful: You are rejecting FOI requests as invalid, when they are actually valid, as a matter of your standard protocol... I'm just trying to help you to correct that.

I invite you to please have another read of my Internal Review request. Hopefully this clarification will help you to read it in a new light.

I then invite you to get back to me on this matter and clarify that you've finally understood the issues being discussed (the links I provided will add immense clarity, if you actually click through and read them!)..... I feel confident that you'll then be able to comprehend the issue and take the appropriate remedial action - and in that case there's absolutely no need whatsoever to bother the ICO with this matter.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter at your earliest convenience and also indicate whether you intend to respond further.

Okay, let me try to put it into even simpler terms for you.... The *only* issue is as follows:

**************************
* You've explicitly stated that it's your organisations' policy not to accept FOI requests where the name provided consists only of a title and surname.

* In that case, your policy is systemically wrong, since the ICO has said that a title and surname is fully acceptable to constitute the 'name' validity requirement for making an FOI request.
**************************

It's that simple.

From your I.R. review , it's absolutely clear that you've not understood the reason I was asking for the review.

Your I.R. review seems to indicate that you *still now* do not understand the name requirement aspect.

This is really, really, really simple. Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy. I feel confident that if you click through to the ICO guidance I previously linked, it should then become clear.
That guidance again, for your convenience:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/reques...
If it's still not clear, perhaps consult a colleague or manager to see if they can help.

I fear you've got this culture of immediately going on the defensive... But I can't stress enough that I'm not trying to attack you and I'm not trying to trick you... I'm honestly, genuinely just trying to help you fix this broken policy.

Maybe it helps if I give you an example of why this matters... Imagine this hypothetical scenario:
1) Mr Roberts submits an FOI request, giving his name as Mr Roberts.
2) You follow your current stated policy and write to Mr Roberts, telling him (incorrectly) that his FOI request is invalid because he has not given his full name.
3) Mr Roberts does not respond further at all.
4) After 20 working days have passed, you would then have broken the law by failing to respond to a valid FOI request within 20 working days. (Also likely broken the law by failing to respond promptly and possibly also for citing an invalid reason for withholding the data).

It would be really super if you'd agree to take another look at this... I feel it would be disappointing to need to involve the ICO over a matter as simple as this, which you've surely got the capacity to comprehend yourselves.

Please, please let me know EITHER WAY if you intend to engage further - even if that's just to say 'we have no further comment on this matter' - in which case I'll ask the ICO to explain it for you (though I'm not sure what they can reasonably add, beyond their super-clear guidance that I've already linked you to!).

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Mr Williams
 
Thank you for your further emails.
 
Further to my appeal response sent to you on the 21^st November, I would
like to clarify that on this occasion, our officer was incorrect in
stating that a title and surname were not acceptable to process your
request under Section 8. I have previously explained that this was a
result of a misunderstanding which has now been addressed.
 
Please be assured that we do take customer feedback seriously and
appreciate your assistance in bringing this matter to our attention. This
will help us to improve the service we provide customers going forward.
 
Once again, we apologise for any inconvenience this misunderstanding may
have caused you but trust that this matter is now resolved. You have a
further right of appeal against this decision, which you can do so in
writing, stating your reasons to the regulating body, the Information
Commissioner's Office.
Contact details: [1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/ or 0303 123 1113 or Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
 
Kind regards
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.
 

show quoted sections

Lewisham Council,

Thanks for your reply today.

Unfortunately, we are still *not quite* on the same page.

Today you wrote:
'our officer was incorrect in
stating that a title and surname were not acceptable to process your
request under Section 8. I have previously explained that this was a
result of a misunderstanding which has now been addressed. '

Sure, that officer who initially responded made a mistake, you *have* covered this, but this is *not* my concern.

My concern is that SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, in your response from Hanna Gibson, which I link to here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n...
this states that Ms Gibson is 'the ***manager*** of the team who handles Freedom Of Information requests'.
In this letter, the ***manager*** of the team clarifies that this mistake was in accordance with Lewisham Council's standard operating procedure, when she writes the following:
'As you are aware, we do need to obtain a full name before we can process an FOI request. Hence I am not critical of my officer in requesting this information from you as he was merely fulfilling his job role.'

.... So clearly this was not one 'lone wolf' officer who merely a mistake... It's apparent that the entire team, including the manager, have been operating under a standard operating procedure which contained a mistake.

.... All I'm looking for here is for you to revise that standard procedure and provide some coaching to the team (including management), to bring your procedure into line with the law.

I feel we are getting close now to you understanding the issue!! Please let me know if you have.

Sincerely,
Mr Williams